The development of QM was so closely connected to experiments that it's highly unlikely, even despite some of the experiments having been performed prior to 1900.
I suspect the move back to pen-and-paper exams is being resisted by the teachers. It shouldn't be that hard though--when the workload became to great, most of my own professors would offload part of the grading task to TAs and grad students.
It does seem like in-person pen-and-paper exams would hold the line pretty firmly with respect to competence. It's a simple solution and I haven't heard any good arguments against it.
I'm seeing this reaction a lot from younger people (say, roughly under 25). And it's a shame this new suspicion has now translated into a prohibition on the use of dashes.
It's utterly uncommon in the kind of casual writing for which people are using AI, that's why it got noticed. Social media posts, blogs, ...
AI almost certainly picked it up mainly from typeset documents, like PDF papers.
It's also possible that some models have a tokenizing rule for recognizing faked-out em-dashes made of hyphens and turning them into real em-dash tokens.
On my own (long abandoned) blog, about 20% of (public) posts seem to contain an em dash: https://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/?s=%E2%80%94 (going by 4 pages of search results for the em dash vs 21 pages in total).
> How do I belong? How do I make my community a better place? How do I build wealth for the people I love?
What remains after is something like the social status games of the aristocratic class, which I suspect is why there's a race to accumulate as much as possible now before the means to do so evaporate.
It's garbage opinions like this that makes PG so tiring. The superficial air of reasonableness makes it attractive to younger SF tech people who haven't experienced the context out of which these arguments arose and have no idea who he's plagiarizing/channeling. (For starters, the distinction between wealth and money/capital goes back at least to the 17th century.) For those who are more interested in being the "next unicorn" than engaging seriously with ideas, his little "essays" serve as kind of armor--we don't have to think about that problem because PG wrote about it!
If it's any consolation, these companies paying for ads on a competitor's brand name are probably paying through the nose to get clicks that only bounce. IF it's worth it at all, it's probably temporary. It's an indicator that market share is still up for grabs.
This was my first thought too. The last generation of activity tracking, while still dystopian, was a little different at least in that it was mainly statistical. So action-wise, it might point managers at "potential problems," but doesn't make its way into a performance review (e.g. "your mouse only traveled 81.72 screen-miles this quarter, 2 standard deviations below the mean, while you also scored the lowest on number of keystrokes with vscode as the active window..."). If a manager really wanted to summarize exactly what was done they had to spend an almost equal amount of time to watch. To some degree, this alleviates that.
Why would software be qualitatively different from all other forms of automation that came before? And suppose, for the sake of argument, that software is fully automated at some point--what then happens to the firm?
Special relativity however seems possible.